getConnectAccount

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, shows the HTTP method, and discloses the rate limit of 100 requests per 1m. It does not describe response content or authorization requirements, but for a zero-parameter read-only status check this is strong transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence packs the verb, resource, rate limit, safety profile, and endpoint with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the most important identifying information appears first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only status check, the description provides the essential request context: what to retrieve, the endpoint, the rate limit, and the safety level. The only minor gap is that it does not define what values or fields 'status' may contain, but there is no output schema requiring explanation and invocation remains unambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already has 100% coverage of nothing, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description reinforces the operation by tying it to the GET endpoint, which is sufficient at the baseline for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('the tenant's Stripe Connect account status'), and gives the concrete endpoint (GET /paygate/connect/account). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like getConnectBalance, which target a different resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied by the wording: call this when you need the tenant's Stripe Connect account status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool would be preferable, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.